Adam and Eve as a Myth

[javajo]

So why don't we find evidence of seed bearing plants predating animals?

By a day?

No that would be false based on misinformation from theist playing scientist and doing poor work.

I agree, there is a lot of falseness and misinformation out there by lots of different people.

at the rate its moving close it still has billions of years before it even gets close

I don't believe it ever was close.

are you a scientist? or just reading from creationist websites promoting misinformation?

I'm a scientist that has spent their life in a lab. JK. Lots of that misinformation going around. I don't even need to be a scientist to know that, although I have studied more science than I can remember.

History of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Earth formed around 4.54 billion years ago by accretion from the solar nebula.

When I was young it was only 4.3 billion years. You really buy that? Ok.

this is what I find strange, the jewish community who's writing this belongs to claim it is all mythology and never intended to be a history book or ever read that way.

That is not how it reads nor how Jesus or anyone else in the Bible understood Adam and Eve or the Flood. I am sorry many people today believe it is myth. I do not.

Here is a serious question

How could Israelites who formed around 1200 BC from the Canaanite culture know anything about the evolution of man, and the 200,000 years homo sapiens have been on this planet?

They couldn't. It didn't happen. Someone needs to go tell the monkeys that forgot to evolve, too. But, how could they have known?

Instead we see them writing about what they knew passed down from previous cultures, In this case Adam came from the Mesopotamian cultures who called their first man in mythology Adamu. These legends came back straight from Mesopotamia after the Babylonian exile, and people came back to Israel with these legends

There are many similar legends of the Flood as well. I believe the Bible is the real McCoy.

Your math is faulty. While Earth's rotation was much faster than now and the moon much closer, they were never as fast or as close as you think.

The Geophysical Effects of the Earth's Slowing Rotation!

Specific Arguments - Moon Recede

I don't believe they were ever close...

You need to learn some maths. Even if you use today's values for recession of 3.82cm/year (ignoring the fact that physics says recession rate increases as the moon gets further from the earth) then 4.5 billion years ago the Moon would have been 171,900Km closer to the earth which is just over half its current distance.

I suspect you have been looking at creationist sites, so maybe you should ask why they are lying to you?

I don't believe the moon was ever that close. But at even your half distance, man, surf's up! I do believe there are liars out there.

As a lighting professional I know what it is.
But, as to your explanation... lol, ok. There was light with no emitter. Right.

I believe the Bible says God is light and says Jesus is the light. So its not a problem for me. Also, I believe this universe had a beginning and everything with a beginning has a cause. I believe God is the cause. I believe God is outside the natural laws of this universe, so there are supernatural laws outside this universe. I believe God has revealed himself in his creation if we really study it. He also revealed himself in his Word and in our conscience. But that is another topic. Anyway, thanks to all for your replies, I just believe in Adam and Eve and the Bible as true. Peace.

 

[outhouse]

They couldn't. It didn't happen. Someone needs to go tell the monkeys that forgot to evolve, too. But, how could they have known?

Well you are wrong. Evolution of mankind is not up for debate.

because some theist do not accept common knowledge, does not make those theist arguements credible. They are not.


Monkeys all have evolved.

There are many similar legends of the Flood as well. I believe the Bible is the real McCoy.

Yes and all of these flood legends go back to a real man and a reaL FLOOD OF A RIVER. And they all came from cultures that existed thousands of years before Israelites existed.





I dont mind you not accepting high school level science positions taught in ever school around the world.

But when you refuse known history, we have to start wondering where the problem lies

 

[javajo]

Well you are wrong. Evolution of mankind is not up for debate.

Evolution is a THEORY. It is up for debate.

because some theist do not accept common knowledge, does not make those theist arguements credible. They are not.

Theory, not common knowledge.

Monkeys all have evolved.

Some just forgot to evolve into humans (Oh, and in the fossil record, monkeys have always been monkeys).

Yes and all of these flood legends go back to a real man and a reaL FLOOD OF A RIVER. And they all came from cultures that existed thousands of years before Israelites existed.

Well, I believe the account in the Bible is the true account and it covered the earth. And God promised to never again do that. And he hasn't. 'Cuz God luvz us like that.

I dont mind you not accepting high school level science positions taught in ever school around the world. But when you refuse known history, we have to start wondering where the problem lies

High school level THEORIES, which when I examined more closely were more like high school level lies, propaganda, misinformation, deception, bad art work and bs. I learned that same bs in college biology, too. My teacher at least thought that if evolution were proven true, then perhaps that's just how God chose to do it. Many people accept that and that's cool. Its simply not where I have landed on the matter. Many people believe Adam and Eve is a myth. I don't. If you do, that's fine. No sense wasting our time arguing about it. Neither one of us is going to convince the other any differently, eh? Alright, peace and enjoyed the discussion about Adam and Eve.

 

[greentwiga]

Java Jo
If you read the Genesis account, without bringing in all the traditional interpretations, but let the Bible speak afresh, you will find that the account of Adam and Eve is more accurate than the fundamentalists have portrayed. Once you see that it is an accurate account of the invention of farming about 9,000 BC, down to the very spot, you must then ask, could the creation of Gen 1 be a different story than that of Gen 2. Notice that Gen 2:4 indicates that many generations occurred between the creation of the Sun and Moon and Adam and Eve. This could be interpreted the traditional way, but could equally be interpreted to allow for evolution. I would hate to fight evolution only to have God say to me that He used evolution, and my fighting against it turned many young people away from God. Thus, though I believe each and every word of the Bible is true, I accept that it is quite reasonable to believe that the Bible allows for it. It doesn't say that evolution was the way, just that it is a possibility.

 

[gnostic]

Well you are wrong. Evolution of mankind is not up for debate.

That's not strictly true.

All branches, fields and subfields of science, including evolution, are subjected to debate, because they are subjected to scrutiny, revision, update and the possibility of refutation.

If evolution (esp theory of evolution) was not up to the possibility of refutation then it isn't "falsifiable"...and if it not falsifiable, then it isn't "scientific".

Falsification is necessary and essential to modern science.

And evolution is falsifiable, and has been proven to valid scientific theory because there are verifiable and testable evidences to support evolution.

Biologically, life change over successive generations. That's the fact, and the theory of evolution is the currently the best explanation to explain such changes. Evolution (both science and theory) has gone beyond Darwin's theory on Natural Selection (NS); there are other explanations/theories of different evolutionary mechanisms. These new theories don't refute Darwin's theory (NS), because it (NS) is still a valid theory. They actually confirmed that NS is right, but the new theories/mechanisms expanded on the original theory.

Although i will wholeheartedly agree with you that evolution is accepted as a science and as a fact on biological reality, the truth of the matter is that the (theory of) evolution is still refutable theory.

 

[javajo]

Java Jo
If you read the Genesis account, without bringing in all the traditional interpretations, but let the Bible speak afresh, you will find that the account of Adam and Eve is more accurate than the fundamentalists have portrayed.

I believe it is accurate to a tee.

Once you see that it is an accurate account of the invention of farming about 9,000 BC, down to the very spot, you must then ask, could the creation of Gen 1 be a different story than that of Gen 2.

Farming? Nah.

Notice that Gen 2:4 indicates that many generations occurred between the creation of the Sun and Moon and Adam and Eve. This could be interpreted the traditional way, but could equally be interpreted to allow for evolution.

Nah. Genesis 1 is an overview, Genesis 2 is more detailed and deals with man. It was a common method of writing. Jesus even said in the beginning God made them male and female.

I would hate to fight evolution only to have God say to me that He used evolution, and my fighting against it turned many young people away from God. Thus, though I believe each and every word of the Bible is true, I accept that it is quite reasonable to believe that the Bible allows for it. It doesn't say that evolution was the way, just that it is a possibility.

I would never tell someone they had to reject evolution to believe in God or the Bible. I am just saying I don't believe it, that's all. On the other hand, many people do not believe in Jesus and his miracles and how his death paid our sin debt BECAUSE they don't believe in the Adam and Eve story or the Flood of Noah, both of which Christ confirmed. See, it does not make sense for Romans 5 to repeat over and over that by Adam sin and therefore death came upon all and by Christ all may be made alive if it didn't actually happen that way. I can believe the Bible is true and not have to compromise with skeptics and critics who use the evolutionary theory or any thing else to discredit it. Upon my examination, creation and the Genesis account make way more sense both scientifically and Biblically, but as one man said, "I wouldn't have seen it if I wouldn't have believed it."

 

[gnostic]

Evolution is a THEORY.

You really don't know what theory is, do you?

Evolution is a field in biological science. Evolution has several different theories of different mechanisms (Mutation, Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Genetic Hitchhiking, Gene Flow), but all of them are factual. Each of them have been verified with evidences. Can you refute any of these mechanisms?

Natural Selection is the oldest theory (in evolution), but it is still relevant today as it was in Darwin's days.

Every single fields (and sub-fields) in every branches of science have established scientific theories.

A theory (not just the ones in evolutionary biology) is the best explanation to explain natural phenomena, that have been verified with tests and evidences.

There are many Christians who accepted evolution (and its theory) to be the best explanation of why life changes (biologically) over successive generations, due to changes in environment.

Evolution is not about the origin of life, which creationists tends to completely ignored, thereby demonstrating their ignorance.

That you would dismiss evidences that support evolution without any evidence to support your claim is just matter of your opinion, clouded by your blind faith in your religion, and wishful thinking.

And this statement that "Evolution is a THEORY", only demonstrated that creationist's ignorance knows no bound. Your intellect is staggering (bankrupted).

 

[camanintx]

So why don't we find evidence of seed bearing plants predating animals?

By a day?

More like 200 million years.

 

[outhouse]

All branches, fields and subfields of science, including evolution, are subjected to debate, because they are subjected to scrutiny, revision, update and the possibility of refutation.

well I disagree completely.

for the fact that evolution as we know it, has been observed abd theri are facts of evolution.


Now I would agree that specific topics within evolution are up for further study


But it is a fact we all evolved from a common ancestor, that is not up for debate

 

[outhouse]

That's not strictly true.

sure it is

show me one credible scientist that debates humans evolved

 

[javajo]

You really don't know what theory is, do you?

Evolution is a field in biological science. Evolution has several different theories of different mechanisms (Mutation, Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Genetic Hitchhiking, Gene Flow), but all of them are factual. Each of them have been verified with evidences. Can you refute any of these mechanisms?

Natural Selection is the oldest theory (in evolution), but it is still relevant today as it was in Darwin's days.

Every single fields (and sub-fields) in every branches of science have established scientific theories.

A theory (not just the ones in evolutionary biology) is the best explanation to explain natural phenomena, that have been verified with tests and evidences.

There are many Christians who accepted evolution (and its theory) to be the best explanation of why life changes (biologically) over successive generations, due to changes in environment.

Evolution is not about the origin of life, which creationists tends to completely ignored, thereby demonstrating their ignorance.

That you would dismiss evidences that support evolution without any evidence to support your claim is just matter of your opinion, clouded by your blind faith in your religion, and wishful thinking.

And this statement that "Evolution is a THEORY", only demonstrated that creationist's ignorance knows no bound. Your intellect is staggering (bankrupted).

Its still a theory with all the missing links in the fossil record to show. I do accept some of the mechanisms you mentioned. Mutations happen, I just see that they are always to a lesser state, not better. Things have not evolved upward, no. But I'm not here to debate a theory, this is about the Adam and Eve story, which I am simply stating, I believe is true.

More like 200 million years.

I appreciate good comedy, thanks.

 

[David M]

Well, I believe the account in the Bible is the true account and it covered the earth. And God promised to never again do that. And he hasn't. 'Cuz God luvz us like that.

What is funny is that you can read the exact same words and interpret it as being a local flood because the word you take as meaning the whole world can also just mean a large geographic area (e.g. The Land of Israel).

 

[outhouse]

'Cuz God luvz us like that.

love us enough to murder everyone and everything on the planet less a 1 boat load of animals and a family of Israelites

doesnt sound loving at all

 

[javajo]

What is funny is that you can read the exact same words and interpret it as being a local flood because the word you take as meaning the whole world can also just mean a large geographic area (e.g. The Land of Israel).

Here is my beliefs. Israel was not even a nation at that time. Abraham who begat Isaac who begat Jacob who begat the twelve sons who were the fathers of the twelve tribes of Israel was born nine generations after Noah. I do not believe it was a local flood in that God promised to never destroy the world again by water and gave us the rainbow as a sign of that promise. We still have local floods. Also, after the flood, men lived only to 120 years at most. Before then they lived much longer. In the Garden we know a mist came up and watered everything, no rain. The rain at the flood may have been the first anyone had ever seen, the atmosphere may have been different as there hadn't been a rainbow and men began to die much younger. This may have contributed to the start of the extinction of the dinosaurs. See passage below...

love us enough to murder everyone and everything on the planet less a 1 boat load of animals and a family of Israelites

doesnt sound loving at all

Again, they were not Israelites. We do know God is merciful and loving and kind. We only know the world had fallen into deep wickedness and violence to the point that God regretted making them. Also, the "sons of God" the women of humans and had offspring that were mighty men and very wicked. We do not know if these were just kings of old or demons or what, but it produced some very wicked offspring. The phrase "women of humans" may suggest these were not mere men, perhaps mighty and strong sons of kings or perhaps something else? Here is the account from Genesis:

6 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

I would add that God waited seven days after he shut Noah's family in the Ark and then the floods came. I believe all who have trusted Christ who are still alive to meet him in the air at the rapture will be like them, they will escape the seven years of tribulation to come on the earth. During this time many people still won't turn from their wickedness even though they endure such judgment. So in the end God will destroy the world by fire and make new heavens and earth where the righteous will live forever with him.

 

[outhouse]

We only know the world had fallen into deep wickedness and violence to the point that God regretted making them

um which one ???


which one was worshipped?



and while we are at it, what is the exact date of this flood of yours, and can you tell me why during this date, that there were 3 cultures with writing that did not show a years break when your flood is said to have happened????????

 

[javajo]

um which one ???


which one was worshipped?



and while we are at it, what is the exact date of this flood of yours, and can you tell me why during this date, that there were 3 cultures with writing that did not show a years break when your flood is said to have happened????????

Which God? God, God, the God of the Bible. The Flood occured on the seventeenth day of the second month of the year bc ????...lol. (Well at least I knew the day and month from Genesis 7:11) Of course the flood happened before those three cultures came to be. I have heard there were ten kings that lived before the flood but the exact archeological artifact that is on eludes me at the moment and is irrelevant. Anyway, I think this is supposed to be about Adam and Eve.

 

[outhouse]

Which God? God, God, the God of the Bible.

at the time they wrote the flood happened historically that god didnt exist. the god's of judaism didnt even begin until 1200 BC and at that time they were the gods of the Canaanites still.

Of course the flood happened before those three cultures came to be

so now you go against the bible which places it roughly 4200 BC???


all 3 cultures had writing during that period without a break in any record! from a deivistating flood.


if you cant place a date to the flood maybe it didnt happen.

I think this is supposed to be about Adam and Eve

this mythology and teh flood mythology was all created pretty close together as collections and pieces that evolved over hundreds of years of editing with changing cultures within judaism

 

[javajo]

at the time they wrote the flood happened historically that god didnt exist. the god's of judaism didnt even begin until 1200 BC and at that time they were the gods of the Canaanites still.




so now you go against the bible which places it roughly 4200 BC???


all 3 cultures had writing during that period without a break in any record! from a deivistating flood.


if you cant place a date to the flood maybe it didnt happen.




this mythology and teh flood mythology was all created pretty close together as collections and pieces that evolved over hundreds of years of editing with changing cultures within judaism

Alright. I hope its ok with you that I believe it.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I believe the Bible says God is light and says Jesus is the light. So its not a problem for me. Also, I believe this universe had a beginning and everything with a beginning has a cause. I believe God is the cause. I believe God is outside the natural laws of this universe, so there are supernatural laws outside this universe. I believe God has revealed himself in his creation if we really study it. He also revealed himself in his Word and in our conscience. But that is another topic. Anyway, thanks to all for your replies, I just believe in Adam and Eve and the Bible as true. Peace.

The Bible says many things which are obviously just prose, like 'Jesus is a lamb'. Do you believe Jesus was a young sheep with fleece?

It's not to be taken literally, God is not light; it's just a bad story written by uneducated country people who had no idea what they were talking about.

 

[gnostic]

I believe the Bible says God is light and says Jesus is the light.

So?

You have heard of literary "simile", haven't you?

In literature, authors have the tendency to use similes to describe things.

Some examples:

Her eyes flashes like fire...

He run like the wind...

The girl was as fierce as a lioness.
​

Just because people use similes, doesn't mean her eyes are "fire" or that the runner is the "wind". And the girl is not literally or physically a "lioness".
You shouldn't take some phrases so literally; doing so will only misunderstand the author's intention.

EDIT

Oops!

Heathen Hammer beat me to it.